SAMIRUDDIN KHAN,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 16.12.2019 is illegal, bad in law, inter alia

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

condone the delay of two (2) days to filing the appeal. 3. At the outset, the revenue placed that both the appeals are in the same nature and have a common factual background. Accordingly, we have taken together, heard together and disposed of together. ITA No. 490/Kol/2019is taken as lead case. 4. The revenue has taken the following grounds

DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

condone the delay of two (2) days to filing the appeal. 3. At the outset, the revenue placed that both the appeals are in the same nature and have a common factual background. Accordingly, we have taken together, heard together and disposed of together. ITA No. 490/Kol/2019is taken as lead case. 4. The revenue has taken the following grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VICTOR TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Victor Tradelink Pvt. Ltd 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 12.11.2023 declaring total income at Rs.1,75,152/- and the same was duly processed

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

THE WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay of 52 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.17,29,58,525/- by ld. CIT(Appeals) as made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of difference between the liabilities as on 31.03.2006 and as on 31.03.2007 payable to the financial

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 also for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: AY 2014-15: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. 2. For that oh the facts

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 also for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: AY 2014-15: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. 2. For that oh the facts

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 also for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: AY 2014-15: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. 2. For that oh the facts

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

condone the delay and admit the appeal for regular hearing. 3. The brief facts arising in this case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 24.09.2009 declaring loss of Rs.30,97,3290/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee and as and when called

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

condoning the delay. The department has all the where-whittle to ensure that regulatory compliance and the relevant actions are taken within the prescribed limitation, with all sense of responsibility. The petition filed under the signature of DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata provides for general and vague explanations covering broader terms of period for explaining the delay. We note

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O, M/S. Salarpuria Income-Tax, Circle- 1, Jajodia & Co., 3Rd Floor, 7, Vs. Kolkata. Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. (Pan: Aagcs8492P) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd., 3(2), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.3/Kol/2023 In Ita No.736/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

condoning the delay. The department has all the where-whittle to ensure that regulatory compliance and the relevant actions are taken within the prescribed limitation, with all sense of responsibility. The petition filed under the signature of DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata provides for general and vague explanations covering broader terms of period for explaining the delay. We note

HILTON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 03. The only issue raised in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹3,61,54,000/- by ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of share application / share premium, received during the year as unexplained cash credit

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the action

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KKALPANA INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.452/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dcit, Cc-1(4), Kolkata Vs Kkalpana Industries India Ltd. 2B, Pretoria Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aabck 2239 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 13.11.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070338584(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld.Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Ms. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That The Appeal Of The Revenue Has Been Filed Belatedly By 28 Days. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Sufficient Reasons Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Thus, The Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing.

delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that he was invoking his liberty under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in regard to the issue which has been held against the assessee

ITO(TDS),WD-58(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PACEMAN SALES PROMOTION PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

191 of the Income Tax Act and accordingly application of section 201(1A) affording the added alternative support as to no liability of payment of TDS U/s 194C and payment of interest thereon. ITA No. 1296/Kol/2012 & 10 & CO No.12/Kol/2013 C-AM M/s.Paceman Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd We find that there is delay in filing cross objections by the assessee